|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Originally Posted by okiman
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Originally Posted by okiman
3) The most likely case - I've missed something that is very important here.
Or maybe you just overlooked it when it was in plain sight. There are two cases where we 3-bet with only one real difference. What's that difference? Hint: It's not the bet size.
The difference is in one case we allow our opponent to push all in while in the other we push (we commit or he commits). We're removing our opponent's fold equity and maximizing our fold equity.
Nope, it's not fold equity, but you're really close.
Here's a hint: The underlined portion isn't completely true. Our opponent doesn't have fold equity in this situation.
The amount he folds changes, so the amount he ______________ changes. Why does that change, and why is it important?
Edit: Actually fold equity *is* important here, and is very much related to what I' m hoping you get at eventually, but now I see it might be a little too hidden in this example, so I' m going to spit it out.
This hand is a very basic example of range manipulation.
I would not have said range manipulation. I would have come back with another weak-ass convoluted description of it as before - dancing around it without ever stating it correctly, such as:
Originally Posted by okiman
2) It's not "really" about 3-betting (aka - it's about playing against thinking opponents).
A thinking opponent would be able to exploit this player by 3 betting wide. When playing against thinking opponents we need to think about the game-theoretic strategy, the least exploitable. This player's choice to short stack combined with choosing to raise far wider than he is willing to stack off with makes him very exploitable. Precisely what we need to avoid doing as players - being exploitable.
But this is really about 2 things, right? First, manipulating our opponent's ranges and, second, making it as difficult as possible to manipulate ours.
|
Reply With Quote